Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Returning to my time, when you speak of no water rights, that is all. That is inclusive. And when we speak specifically of no action, no water rights unless they are in accordance with State law, you have broken it out and allowed interpretation. I know this solicitor and I know this Secretary of Interior, and I know westerners do not trust them. And this is one Senator who does not trust them either. I do not want to give them a chance to play interpretive games with western water. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for the clarification--with that provision.

Mr. CRAIG. I only say to the junior Senator from New Mexico that his language was not at issue because it was not the document that makes it to the floor of the Senate coming out of the committee for the one area of the committee of jurisdiction that I was responsible for. All I say is I believe there is a difference. I believe there is an opportunity to interpret. I think it ought to be closed, and the way that can be closed is for the Senator to accept the language in section 124 of the language of the senior Senator from New Mexico. If the Senator will do that, I then have no argument.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. No more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. President, let me tell the Senator from Arkansas how I am going to vote. I am going to vote against the Senator from Arkansas and his amendment and the amendment that he has modified. In doing that, I will vote for fairness and equity and balance in the sale of a publicly held resource, the public grass of the public land States of this Nation. What the Senator from Arkansas did not tell you is that he has never asked for a two-tiered rise in the sale of the trees of the Ozark's St. Francis forest. The reason is because he thinks it is fair that the largest timber companies in the world and the smallest man with a sawmill in his backyard ought to pay the same price for trees. The only thing the Senator from Arkansas has done, and I agree with him, is say the small mill operator ought to be given some advantage through small business set-asides. I think we have agreed with that over the years. But the tree he buys or that Boise Cascade buys is sold on the market at the same price. Now, when it comes to selling the grass of the public lands, that grass should be sold in a fair way. Those who are buying it ought to be able to purchase it in a fair way. Should we ask that a blade of grass bought by a small rancher be less in value than one bought by a large rancher? No. I think when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of this Senate--who took it as their responsibility this year to revise grazing law, grazing policy, and we did. I say to the Senator from Arkansas, we heard you. We heard the American people that public land grazing policy ought to be adjusted and changed. We introduced a bill earlier this year. It was not as pleasing to some as it ought to be. The Senator from New Mexico and I pulled that bill back, along with our colleague from Wyoming and other Western States, reviewed it, and reached out to a variety of public interest groups. They made 27 different recommendations, and we pooled those recommendations together. The legislation you have before you today does a variety of things, but one thing it does is it raises grazing fees. It puts in place a new formula. It brings about a fairness and equity that every permittee that is a rancher, large or small, who has grazing on public lands, agrees with, and that is that the fees ought to go up. But what I do not believe in--and I do not think the Senator from Arkansas wants to do it--is to establish class warfare in the selling of public resources for the public good. We do not say to rich people who go to the U.S. parks, ``Oh, I am sorry, you are a millionaire, so you have to pay $2 more to use the campground.'' Maybe we should. Maybe the Senator from Arkansas ought to propose that. What about the backpacker that pays the fee to enter a wilderness area? Should they pay more if their portfolio says they are a multimillion dollar person? I think not. We in this country have always spoken to fairness, equity, and reasonable values. But what the Senator has offered is not fair, not equitable, and, in my opinion, it is class warfare. It makes great headlines in the newspapers. So if it is none of those things, what is it? Why is the Senator asking for this kind of dramatic change from the policy that the committee he serves on has crafted? I do not think it is anything to do about money, and he has admitted that. Whether you charge the big multimillion-dollar ranchers much, much more for the going market rate of grass than you would the smaller--the Senator from Utah said it would not even pay for the subway the Senate purchased a year ago. And if it would not, then what is the issue? The issue is power and control, to get a few more folks off the land so we can have a different image or a different idea as to how the lands ought to be managed. That is what we are really talking about here. I sincerely believe--coming from a public land State, where ranching is an important part of our economy--that it is good public policy to have a sound grazing policy in our country that says that grass ought to be grazed in a reasonable fashion, that it is a resource of our country that ought to be utilized for the development and the growth of red protein, for the consumption of our country and for the health of our citizens. We have always held that value in this country. What we have done over time is change the way the lands are managed, and that is fair. We should not be managing the grazing lands of the West the way they were managed in 1935, and we are not. The public is telling us today that they ought to be managed differently in 1996 than they were in 1995. Our legislation does that. So we accept change. We should accept change. But I plead with the Senator from Arkansas to accept fairness and equity. Public resources, whether it is the campground, whether it is the trail, whether it is the log, minerals, or grass, what we are talking about here is that it should be managed responsibly, and it should be marketed in a fair and equitable fashion. We have never in this country engaged in class warfare, nor should we now, whether it is the sale of public grass, the sale of the public tree, or the public resources. I plead with my colleagues in the Senate to vote down the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator had said ``all'' water rights, I would agree with him. The Senator did not. His amendment explicitly singles out ``new'' water rights. It is very important that we have that understood for the record, and it is important, I think, if we are to protect these State rights and individual rights, that language comply with the bill of the senior Senator from New Mexico because it clearly sets out that whole issue. Is there a reason for a singling out of ``new'' versus the interpretation of, and excluding all existing rights?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on March 17, 1996, Representative and Mrs. Benjamin Lu of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative office in Washington, DC, will sponsor the Music for Democracy concert at the Kennedy Center. It will be an occasion to celebrate Taiwan's long journey toward democracy. The late President Chiang Ching-Kuo nurtured the seeds of democracy on Taiwan by lifting the emergency decree, liberalizing personal freedoms and legalizing opposition political parties. After Chiang's death in 1988, President Lee Teng-Hui presided over further economic and political liberalization, vowing to make the Republic of China a nation built on economic opportunity and democracy. Now in 1996, Taiwan is indeed a success story with a strong, growing economy and open democratic elections. Over the last 8 years, the People of the Republic of China have participated in the free election of the National Assembly, three elections of the Legislative Yuan, the election of the Governor of Taipei Province, and mayoral elections in Taipei and Kaohsiung. The most notable in the progression will occur on March 23 of this year, when Taiwan will hold its first free and direct election of the President of the Republic of China. Mr. President, there will be four presidential candidates on the ballot, the incumbent President Lee Teng-Hui being one of the four. This presidential election will answer the old question of whether democracy is possible or appropriate in a Chinese society. As the Republic of China has demonstrated to the world, democracy is truly appropriate and possible for Taiwan, and for all countries. Democracy, in Taiwan's case, has been achieved without sacrificing either political stability or economic growth. I have met President Lee Teng-Hui and have been impressed by his commitment to democratic principles. I also understand from individuals associated with President Lee and his Government, such as Professor N. Mao, that he is a man truly dedicated to making the Republic of China a first-rate nation and its people prosperous and free. Mr. President, I commend Representative and Mrs. Lu for sponsoring the Music for Democracy Concert on March 17. I join the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan in their celebration of democracy and commend President Lee for his efforts in leading the Republic of China down that road. Mr. President, I salute President Lee and his people.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President. I join with my colleagues this morning in opposition to the Murray amendment to the salvage law that became part of the law of this land last year, as we attempted to address the devastating fires of 1994. Of course, we have watched over the last good number of months as we worked with the administration and the Forest Service to implement the necessary regulations to carry out the salvage. I am disappointed this morning that we find ourselves in a situation now where for political purposes, I have to guess, we are here on the floor debating this issue. I say that in all due respect to the Senator from Washington who is attempting to craft an amendment to address an issue that obviously she is very concerned about. Here are my problems, and I will not go into the detail of the 318 sales--those are valid existing contracts, carried out by multidiscipline groups on the ground, selecting the right sales, talking to the environmentalists, seeking the counsel. All of that has already been done. Now, if it had not been done, there may be a basis to argue. But it has been done. It has been done for over several years. I know that because sitting beside me on the Senate floor is a staff assistant who was a ranger in one of the forests, who developed the teams that brought the environmentalists to the table to resolve the issue of what ought to be in those sales. Those are facts on the books. Why are we debating 318 sales if the public has already had a full dimension in participating in how those types of sales would be brought about? The Senator from Washington said there were not adequate hearings. Mr. President, here is the record of the hearings, and these are not all the books. There have been a lot of hearings. I have conducted at least one in the committee that I chair. We have had the administration and the Assistant Secretary before us to talk about the details of how this law gets implemented. This administration spent over 6 months putting regulations together, in a way that involved more and more people in decisionmaking, as to what were the right and the wrong sales. So there has been a phenomenal amount of involvement. The Senator's amendment proposes to take approximately $130 million from the remaining fiscal year of the Forest Service to implement what she suggests ought to be done. Here are some calculations that come to me from staff, based on what we believe are legitimate figures. The Senator from Washington, if her amendment becomes law, will require an immediate RIF of nearly 1,700 Federal employees off the employment rosters of the U.S. Forest Service. Because she could not find offsets, she goes immediately into the law and into the budget for the U.S. Forest Service for the remainder of the fiscal year, and it appears that that is what is happening. I hope she will explain that to us and correct that. The Forest Service, through a reduction in force, has reduced employees over the last 5 years 1,000 a year; 5,000 employees in the Forest Service are now gone from where they were 5 years ago. I hope the junior Senator from Washington can speak to us about where she finds her money and the impact on current employees and the ability of the Forest Service to carry out the remainder of this year's activities, not just in timber, but in trail maintenance, campgrounds, public safety, in all of the kinds of things that we expect them to do. I believe she is obligated to tell us the kind of impact this kind of reduction or change in the expenditure of the Forest Service would result in. I understand that the junior Senator has attempted to remove the clause which requires the immediate suspension of active logging. I appreciate that because in my State of Idaho it could cost us thousands of jobs this year of literally thousands of working men and women in small communities across my State, who are anticipating these salvage sales, based on the legal and legitimate approach the Forest Service has used. She is suggesting that they might not get those jobs. But here is the problem, and I wish, again, the Senator would address this. I believe that even though she has changed that provision to immediately suspend active logging, that is, through the clause required within the law, here is the result: What happens is the same effect occurs, because now all of these actions are again subject to appeal, and that could result in an automatic 60-day-plus stay or longer. And all of those sales that are now ready to be logged this spring as soon as the ground stabilizes and the snow is gone could be immediately back into the courts. I am suggesting to the junior Senator that she really ought to correct that problem if she is sincere in suggesting that active logging not get stopped. The reason I say that is because one sale in my State, which is kind of the ``poster child'' sale, called the ``Thunderbolt,'' was one where every environmental group lined up and took this sale into court, and they kept it in court for nearly 6 months. Finally, the courts ruled that the Forest Service had done all of the right and proper things to resolve this sale. Here is the result of it. This was a sale that was a product of the devastating fires in Idaho in 1994. It is to be 100 percent helicopter- logged, not one new road built. Only 12 percent of the burned area, or 2,200 acres, will be logged. About 16,000 acres will not be touched. The timber salvage will pay for the watershed restoration and the replanting that needs to go on in these devastated areas. That money will not now be there. Those trees will not get replanted. Peer review teams of watershed scientists have reviewed that and reviewed this and endorsed it. I think it is important for the junior Senator from Washington to understand this. The scientists have said that the proper management of this sale, under the way it has been developed by the Forest Service, will improve the environment of the Thunderbolt area, which is a critical watershed area to the Salmon River, which is, of course, a salmon habitat for a threatened and endangered species. Mr. President, the consequence of this amendment is dramatic. You have heard about the potential loss of jobs from the U.S. Forest Service because of the RIF's that would have to occur. Another example of the kind of job loss that is occurring in Idaho right now is as a result of not only current Forest Service action, but an inability to move these salvage sales to sale this last fiscal year because of this administration's very cumbersome process of crafting the regulation to manage this salvage requirement under last year's law, as designed by the senior Senator from the State of Washington. We lost 100 jobs in Salmon, ID. In Metropolitan New York City that is not a big deal, but in Salmon that was the single largest work force outside of the U.S. Forest Service. We lost 200 jobs in Council, ID. That mill shut down, and as we speak, that mill has been torn down and shipped off to a foreign country where there are logs to cut. The Post Falls mill in Post Falls, ID, 200 jobs down, men and women not working. Louisiana Pacific mill and Priest River, 100 jobs down, not working. Sandpoint, ID, 55 jobs down, not working. These are men and women who are on the welfare rolls or who are having to seek other forms of employment. They have had their lives devastated. They have had tremendous financial disruption in their families--not because there are not trees to cut, but because Federal policy, through the appropriate environmental restraints, will not allow that to happen. If we have salvage sales next summer, many of these people will come back to work. If the junior Senator's amendment passes, these people will remain on the welfare rolls in the State of Idaho. Another mill in Grangeville, ID, closed and lost 113 jobs. That mill was torn down, with pieces of it sold, I am told, to Argentina. That is 738 jobs in a State with a population of 1,338,000. Those are critically important jobs. Mr. President, in the fires of 1994, the Forest Service estimated a loss in Idaho of $665 million board feet with a salvage worth $325 million. Half of that value is already gone because we could not cut the trees last summer. The rest of that value will leave this summer if the amendment of the junior Senator from Washington becomes law. There will be no value. It will have rotted away. In other words, the money she would use could be recouped if we simply allowed those sales. My time is up. I certainly encourage all of my colleagues to not support the junior Senator from Washington. I wish she would respond to some of the legitimate concerns we have about the impact of her bill and the loss of 1,700 jobs in the Forest Service and their inability to carry out the public policy needs for the remainder of this fiscal year, which her amendment will badly damage. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I bring to the Senate this afternoon what in Idaho has been a phenomenally serious and frustrating matter in relation to a young adopted child and his adoptive parents. I say that because 6 years ago the Swenson family of Nampa, ID, adopted a 2-month- old child. They went through all of the legal and appropriate channels to do so. They found out several months into the adoption of that child, when the legal processes were underway, that the native American tribe from which this child had come--and the child was half white, half native American--wanted the child returned even though the natural parents did not. As a result of that, a legal fight began. And Legal Aid Services of Idaho became involved in defending, supposedly, the child--even though the child was then less than 2 years old, and the child thought he was a member of the Swenson family--a loving, caring family. I and my staff visited with the Legal Services Corporation, suggesting they not become involved--that it was not the intent of Congress for Legal Services to use their money for these purposes, that there were truly poor and needy people who needed Legal Services to defend them, and that they ought to go elsewhere to find their clients. Another reason I argued that was because the Indian tribe--in this instance the Oglala Sioux--had their own attorney and their own money. They were planning to defend themselves and to argue that this child ought to be returned to their tribe. Believe it or not, this legal fight went on for 6 years. That legal fight was just settled a few months ago in the Idaho Supreme Court. Legal Aid Services of Idaho took this fight all the way to the Supreme Court, expending thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. Here is the headline in the local press of February 23, ``Casey's Adoption Final Today.'' The Supreme Court of Idaho finally said to the Swenson family, ``You are entitled to your son,'' the son now being 6 years old. The story seemed to have a marvelous positive ending, but the tragedy is that the Swenson family spent $250,000 protecting their adopted son. They sold their farm. Here are pictures of the farm being auctioned off less than a month ago to pay the legal fees because of the attack by Legal Services. Of course, we know Legal Services Corporation and their grantees are funded by tax dollars. They should be protecting the poor. That is Congress' intent. The ranking minority member of the appropriations subcommittee has fought for years to assure that kind of direction. I argued with Legal Services that that is where their money ought to be spent. But, oh, no, they had to take on this family. They bankrupted the family in an attempt to gain custody of this child. The family won. The happy ending is here. But the family is bankrupt. My amendment today is simple. It takes the necessary moneys from Legal Services Corporation and gives them to that family. We think that is fair and appropriate. And I have worked with the chairman, and the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee to deal with this because I think this sends a clear message to Legal Services Corporation and its grantees: Do what the law intends you to do. Defend the poor where it is necessary against a more powerful society. But do not enter into these areas where clearly those who might need defending have the resources and support they need. In this instance, that was all very, very clear throughout this fight. It was simply a fight that Legal Services attorneys would not stay out of, for political reasons. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, are we in a quorum?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee. The ranking member has been gallant in his effort to maintain the Legal Services System that responds to the poor and the needy, and I truly appreciate his willingness to look at this issue and to accept it and for the chairman to accept it also. I do believe it sends a message, but it also does something very significant in our society: It rights a wrong.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the manager of the bill has just stepped off the floor, but I know they are working to reduce the number of amendments, to try to resolve as many issues as they can, to get us to a final passage document. The manager has just returned to the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act of 1996. I commend the Senator on his amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor. It only makes common sense: When the Senate or the other body passes an amendment to cut spending, with great fanfare about how fiscally responsible it is and how it will help reduce the deficit, we should make sure that the cut is, indeed, a cut. Many of us in both bodies have been frustrated by supposed spending cuts only to learn that the money supposedly saved becomes immediately available for spending on some other programs. That just shouldn't happen. The Lockbox Act would be an invaluable help to honest budgeting. It would be a blow for truth in legislating. It would finally put an end to one of the gimmicks that has fed so much public cynicism about how Congress goes through the budget process. This amendment is very similar to an amendment adopted by the other body, which was offered by Congressman Mike Crapo of Idaho. It is also similar to one title of a budget process reform package I introduced in the last Congress, the Common-Cents Budget Reform Act. Not only is this sound legislation, it also has a good Idaho pedigree. I support Senator Grams in his offering of this amendment and I call on our colleagues to adopt it. It would remove, once and for all, one insidious way in which Congress in the past have cooked the books. A vote for the Lockbox Act is a vote for better government, more honest budgeting, and a more accountable Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to express my serious concerns with the Cohen-Bumpers amendment regarding the ability of Legal Services Corporation grantees to testify on legislation or rulemaking before Federal, State, or local government bodies. I will not block this amendment at this time, but I think this is a topic worthy of greater deliberation and one that should be revisited. Earlier today, I offered an amendment, which was accepted on both sides, that was prompted by the oft-reported tendency of LSC grantees to exceed the bounds of the law, of its own rules, and of appropriate behavior in pursuing agendas that are often political or ideological, and not oriented toward providing legal services. The Senate had a significant debate over LSC funding during our original consideration of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriation bill because of this very issue. Even in rejecting the Appropriations Committee's recommendation to replace the current LSC system with block grants to the States, the Senate still voted, in adopting the Domenici amendment, to try to focus the activities of LSC grantees on their mission to provide legal representation to the needy in legal proceedings. That is the only LSC- grantee activity that the Federal Government has any business funding, directly or indirectly. Political and policymaking advocacy clearly are--and ought to be--considered inappropriate. In this area and others, the Senate has come down firmly against Federal subsidies for lobbying and advocacy. Three times last year, the Senate adopted different Simpson-Craig amendments along these lines that related to Federal grants, in general. The one that became law, in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, prevents any Federal grants, awards, or loans from going to IRS 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in lobbying activities. The Senate has been building this record on indirect subsidies of lobbying and advocacy for two reasons: First, the public should not be forced to subsidize political and policymaking advocacy on behalf of special interests, and second, dollars are fungible. Most LSC grantees take money from multiple sources. It all gets mixed in one pot. The more you put in the pot from any source, the more you subsidize every item in that grantee's agenda, including those that Federal dollars should not support. I supported the block grant approach to providing legal aid because local control generally leads to better oversight. Even in the Domenici amendment, which was a compromise, there were provisions designed to address the concern that we lack adequate oversight and accountability when it comes to how LSC grantees use their funds. I understand the balance that the authors of this amendment believe they are striking, and I am not unsympathetic. There are some matters on which it would be appropriate for LSC grantees to offer testimony or information, in a way that is directly relevant to their mission to provide legal representation to the needy. However, I think there is a risk here that this amendment may enable what is essentially lobbying. I don't believe the Senate wants LSC grantees to use Federal dollars to free up non-Federal funds to pay for activities we don't want supported by Federal dollars. An indirect subsidy is as real as a direct one. This is an issue that deserves more lengthy and serious debate, and this language deserves closer examination and possibly fine-tuning than can be given in the final rush to finish a 780-page omnibus appropriations bill. I look forward to that process.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Kempthorne, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1996. This legislation would allow for a workable solution to clean up the historic effects of mining on the Coeur d'Alene Basin in north Idaho. This legislation establishes a process that is centered around an action plan developed between the Governor of the State of Idaho and a Citizens Advisory Commission comprised of 13 representatives of affected State and Federal Government agencies, private citizens, the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe, and affected industries. The responsibilities of this commission are very important to the ultimate success of cleaning up the basin. The Silver Valley of north Idaho has made contributions to the national economy and to all of our country's war efforts for well over a century. The Federal Government has been involved in every phase of mineral production over the history of the valley. It is, therefore, appropriate that Congress specifically legislate a resolution of natural resources damages in the Coeur d'Alene Basin and participate in funding such a plan. I want to make clear this legislation does not interfere with the ongoing Superfund cleanup within the 21-square mile Bunker Hill site. This legislation sets up a framework for voluntary cleanup of affected areas outside this 21-square mile area. In drafting this legislation, I have worked with the mining industry, the Coeur d'Alene tribe, local governments, the Governor of Idaho and citizens in north Idaho. It is only through the involvement of all these parties that a solution will be reached. Throughout this effort it has been clear that all parties want the basin cleaned up, and they want the cleanup done with the concerns of local citizens and entities addressed and with controls and cleanup decisions made in Idaho, not in Washington, DC. These are the guiding principles that I have applied in developing this legislation. Local cleanup has already begun in the headwaters of the basin's drainage. Nine Mile Creek and Canyon Creek have had proven engineering designs implemented within their drainages. The Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1996 would assure that this type of meaningful restoration could continue. However, the actions needed in each part of the basin are not clear. That is why my bill calls for the Governor of Idaho and the Citizens Advisory Commission to develop an action plan that can address the varying conditions within the basin. For example, engineering solutions will certainly work in portions of the basin--but not every place. The steeper gradient streams in the upper basin respond well to engineering fixes, but these types of fixes may only exacerbate problems in the lower, flatter portions of the basin. Local input and control through the action plan can address such diversity and the need for varying environmental fixes. The Department of Justice is currently threatening a lawsuit for alleged natural resources damages in the area addressed by this legislation. For the Federal Government to follow such a course would be folly. When the Federal Government litigates under Superfund, the members of the legal profession benefit, as litigation eats away at whatever resources are available for a cleanup. Litigation does not benefit the citizens affected by a cleanup and certainly does not benefit the resources that are purported to be the primary consideration when such a suit is pursued. I do not intend to see cleanup resources in north Idaho to go to litigation and not to cleanup. It is my goal to see the Coeur d'Alene basin cleanup is not litigated away. That is the reason I have introduced this legislation. It will clean up the basin, not litigiously waste the basin's resources. I think it is an important step toward a historic cleanup of a very important and beautiful area of the country.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Kempthorne, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1996. This legislation would allow for a workable solution to clean up the historic effects of mining on the Coeur d'Alene Basin in north Idaho. This legislation establishes a process that is centered around an action plan developed between the Governor of the State of Idaho and a Citizens Advisory Commission comprised of 13 representatives of affected State and Federal Government agencies, private citizens, the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe, and affected industries. The responsibilities of this commission are very important to the ultimate success of cleaning up the basin. The Silver Valley of north Idaho has made contributions to the national economy and to all of our country's war efforts for well over a century. The Federal Government has been involved in every phase of mineral production over the history of the valley. It is, therefore, appropriate that Congress specifically legislate a resolution of natural resources damages in the Coeur d'Alene Basin and participate in funding such a plan. I want to make clear this legislation does not interfere with the ongoing Superfund cleanup within the 21-square mile Bunker Hill site. This legislation sets up a framework for voluntary cleanup of affected areas outside this 21-square mile area. In drafting this legislation, I have worked with the mining industry, the Coeur d'Alene tribe, local governments, the Governor of Idaho and citizens in north Idaho. It is only through the involvement of all these parties that a solution will be reached. Throughout this effort it has been clear that all parties want the basin cleaned up, and they want the cleanup done with the concerns of local citizens and entities addressed and with controls and cleanup decisions made in Idaho, not in Washington, DC. These are the guiding principles that I have applied in developing this legislation. Local cleanup has already begun in the headwaters of the basin's drainage. Nine Mile Creek and Canyon Creek have had proven engineering designs implemented within their drainages. The Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1996 would assure that this type of meaningful restoration could continue. However, the actions needed in each part of the basin are not clear. That is why my bill calls for the Governor of Idaho and the Citizens Advisory Commission to develop an action plan that can address the varying conditions within the basin. For example, engineering solutions will certainly work in portions of the basin--but not every place. The steeper gradient streams in the upper basin respond well to engineering fixes, but these types of fixes may only exacerbate problems in the lower, flatter portions of the basin. Local input and control through the action plan can address such diversity and the need for varying environmental fixes. The Department of Justice is currently threatening a lawsuit for alleged natural resources damages in the area addressed by this legislation. For the Federal Government to follow such a course would be folly. When the Federal Government litigates under Superfund, the members of the legal profession benefit, as litigation eats away at whatever resources are available for a cleanup. Litigation does not benefit the citizens affected by a cleanup and certainly does not benefit the resources that are purported to be the primary consideration when such a suit is pursued. I do not intend to see cleanup resources in north Idaho to go to litigation and not to cleanup. It is my goal to see the Coeur d'Alene basin cleanup is not litigated away. That is the reason I have introduced this legislation. It will clean up the basin, not litigiously waste the basin's resources. I think it is an important step toward a historic cleanup of a very important and beautiful area of the country.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, authorization of the Endangered Species Act expired nearly 4 years ago on September 30, 1992. Since then, Congress has kept the law alive by feeding it new appropriations each year. Funding without authorization is not the way to enact policy, especially one with such a high profile and one which produces such profound effects on our environment and our economy. I have been to the floor numerous times in those 4 years to recount serious problems with the law as it is being administered. It is far too costly; $500 million per year is being spent on Snake River salmon alone. No economic commonsense is being applied--or required--under the current law. The section 7 consultation process is out of control. Dozens of projects have been delayed past the point of economic viability while waiting for concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service. One year ago, a complete shutdown of all multiple use activities on 6 Idaho national forests nearly became a reality because of confusion over section 7. Even today, the Forest Service is proposing to shut down guided rafting trips on the Salmon River to protect spawning salmon. But they are proposing to stop rafting at times of the year when there are no fish in the river. None of this makes any sense, and it unnecessarily angers people, but that is the way the law is being applied. The law makes enemies of private landowners because of the regulation and fear it engenders. You don't build cooperation for endangered species by taking a person's rights or their land. Despite the obvious need to reauthorize the ESA, reform legislation has been locked in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee year after year. My patience has run out. The authorizing committee must generate action on the two reform bills which have sat in committee for months-- Senator Gorton's S. 768 and Senator Kempthorne's S. 1364. I am a cosponsor of both bills. Until we turn seriously to the matter of reauthorization, I will continue to support the moratorium on new listings and designations of critical habitat. The people of Idaho and the Nation continue to believe that conserving fish and wildlife species for the enjoyment of future generations is still the right thing to do. They want to make changes to the law, but don't want to see the Endangered Species Act eliminated. Senator Kempthorne's bill walks that line by: using incentives on private lands, not regulations; granting States a greater role; offering realistic conservation alternatives; and requiring that priorities be set and costs controlled. The committee has been ignoring these good ideas. They are covering their eyes and pretending that no significant problems exist while holding ESA reauthorization at bay. I am confident we can reform the law in a way which will win the confidence of the American public. We must give it a try. I challenge the committee to move toward open debate and consideration of reform legislation. Until that happens, I will support the moratorium. Amendment No. 3479 to Amendment No. 3478

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the disastrous flooding in the northwestern United States has covered many areas with layers of flood-borne boulders, gravel, woody debris, and associated materials. Among those areas of particular concern are U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] lands. The CRP program provides cost-share assistance to reestablish destroyed permanent vegetative cover. It is my understanding that present Department policy prohibits USDA from providing cost-share assistance of clear CRP lands of debris to reestablish permanent cover. However, the severity of this flood has covered these lands with unusually heavy and extensive deposits of materials that must be removed before permanent cover can be reestablished. It is also my understanding that the Department has the discretion to allow cost-sharing assistance to remove such materials. We are told that these lands are not eligible to use Emergency Conservation Program funds for clearing debris.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know, my State of Idaho was devastated like others in the Northwest from floods in recent months. Many agricultural lands have sustained damage which must be repaired if the land is to be returned to productive use. It is my understanding that a need of $1,167,000 has been determined for conservation work and streambank stabilization in Idaho through the Agricultural Conservation Program, which was not requested by the President. However, it is also my understanding that the Department of Agriculture administers the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program and the Emergency Conservation Program, which could fund these needed activities in Idaho and other affected states in the Northwest. I would ask my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies if this is his understanding as well?